A 5-judge Constitution Bench, presided over by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, stated that the expanded Bench would address the issue of the correctness of the interpretation of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution, which extend this privilege to members of Parliament and State Legislatures respectively.
The P V Narasimha Rao case relates to the 1993 JMM bribery case, in which Shibu Soren and certain members of his party were alleged to have accepted bribes in exchange for voting against a vote of no confidence aimed at the P V Narasimha Rao government. The Supreme Court had nullified the case against the JMM MPs, citing immunity under Article 105(2).
On Wednesday, the matter resurfaced in another case connected to bribery allegations against JMM MLA Sita Soren, who was accused of accepting a bribe to vote for an independent candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections. A fresh election was subsequently conducted.
Sita Soren had petitioned the Jharkhand High Court (HC) to quash the chargesheet and criminal proceedings against her, relying on the provisions of Article 194(2), but the HC declined to do so.
She then approached the SC, where a two-judge Bench in September 2014 opined that since the issue was “substantial and of general public importance,” it should be presented before a larger three-judge Bench. On March 7, 2019, when a Bench of three judges took up the appeal, it observed that the HC judgment dealt with the Narasimha Rao verdict and should thus be referred to a larger Bench.
Taking up the matter, the 5-judge Bench, which also included Justices A S Bopanna, M M Sundresh, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, stated on Wednesday: “We are of the considered view that the correctness of the view of the majority in P V Narsimha Rao (case) should be reconsidered by a larger Bench of seven judges.” It underscored that this is an “important issue that concerns our polity.
“Above all, it must be noted that the purpose of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) is to ensure that members of Parliament and State Legislatures are able to discharge their duties in an atmosphere of freedom, without fear of the consequences which may follow for the manner in which they speak or exercise their right to vote on the floor of the House. The object clearly is not to set apart the members of the Legislature as persons who wield higher privileges in terms of immunity from the application of the general criminal law of the land,” the Bench articulated.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, while arguing that a reference was unwarranted based on the facts of the case, contended that the Narasimha Rao judgment does not apply to the Sita Soren case, as the immunity pertained solely to actions related to parliamentary proceedings.
“The only question is – should we wait for it to arise sometime in the future or lay down a law? Because we must also not ignore that if it also furthers public morality on the part of our elected representatives, then we should not defer our decision to some uncertain day in the future,” the CJI remarked.
“As a Constitution Bench, if we have a particular issue that deeply affects the morality of our polity — we shouldn’t, in that sense, not take an opportunity to straighten the law. We have four eminent counsels appearing in this. What better opportunity to straighten the law,” he stated.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the appellant, also suggested that a reference may not be necessary given the circumstances of the case. However, the Bench maintained that it was “not inclined to accept the plea that the correctness of the decision in P V Narasimha Rao (case) does not arise in this case.”
